How politicians make decisions under risk: a political choice experiment
AbstractWe report on an experimental study with real-world politicians. These political experts face political choice problems under risk and probability. Thus, we test the frequently observed violations of rational choice theory -the reference point effect, loss aversion, framing effects, and the common ratio effect- with experts from the field. Their choices violate expected utility theory. Nevertheless, they appear to be more rational and less risk averse (loving) in the domain of gains (losses) than student subjects.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Centro de Estudios Andaluces in its series Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces with number E2004/58.
Length: 22 pages
Date of creation: 2004
Date of revision:
Subject-pool effect; experts; expected utility; prospect theory.;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-07-04 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2004-07-04 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-EXP-2004-07-04 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-LAM-2004-07-04 (Central & South America)
- NEP-POL-2004-07-04 (Positive Political Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Chip Heath & Steven Huddart & Mark Lang, 1999. "Psychological Factors And Stock Option Exercise," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(2), pages 601-627, May.
- Bone, John & Hey, John & Suckling, John, 1999. "Are Groups More (or Less) Consistent Than Individuals?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 63-81, April.
- Alvin E. Roth & V. Prasnikar & M. Okuno-Fujiwara & S. Zamir, 1998.
"Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Liubljana, Pittsburgh and Tokyo: an experimental study,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
344, David K. Levine.
- Roth, Alvin E. & Vesna Prasnikar & Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara & Shmuel Zamir, 1991. "Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1068-95, December.
- Anderson, M.J. & Sunder, S., 1995.
"Professional Traders as Intuitive Bayesians,"
GSIA Working Papers
1995-05, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
- Anderson, Matthew J. & Sunder, Shyam, 1995. "Professional Traders as Intuitive Bayesians," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 185-202, November.
- Dejong, Douglas V. & Forsythe, Robert & Uecker, Wilfred C., 1988.
"A note on the use of businessmen as subjects in sealed offer markets,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 87-100, January.
- Douglas DeJong & Robert Forsythe & Wilfred Uecker, 1988. "A note on the use of businessmen as subjects in sealed offer markets," Artefactual Field Experiments 00039, The Field Experiments Website.
- Dyer, Douglas & Kagel, John H & Levin, Dan, 1989.
"A Comparison of Naive and Experienced Bidders in Common Value Offer Auctions: A Laboratory Analysis,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 108-15, March.
- Dyer, D. & Kagel, J.H. & Levin, D., 1988. "A Comparison Of Naive And Experienced Bidders In Common Value Offer Auctions A Laboratory Analysis," Papers 11, Houston - Department of Economics.
- Jordi Brandts & Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Arthur Schram, 2002. "How Universal is Behavior? A Four Country Comparison of Spite, Cooperation and Errors in Voluntary Contribution Mechanisms," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 532.02, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Isaac, R. Mark & McCue, Kenneth F. & Plott, Charles R., .
"Public Goods Provision in an Experimental Environment,"
428, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Mark Isaac, R. & McCue, Kenneth F. & Plott, Charles R., 1985. "Public goods provision in an experimental environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 51-74, February.
- repec:feb:framed:00135 is not listed on IDEAS
- Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. " Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
- Chan, Kenneth S. & Mestelman, Stuart & Muller, R. Andrew, 2008.
"Voluntary Provision of Public Goods,"
Handbook of Experimental Economics Results,
- Kenneth S. Chan & Stuart Mestelman & R. Andrew Muller, 1998. "Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," McMaster Experimental Economics Laboratory Publications 1998-02, McMaster University.
- Jordi Brandts & Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Arthur Schram, 2003.
"How Universal is Behavior? A Four Country Comparison of Spite and Cooperation in Voluntary Contribution Mechanisms,"
56, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
- Jordi Brandts & Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Arthur Schram, 2004. "How Universal is Behavior? A Four Country Comparison of Spite and Cooperation in Voluntary Contribution Mechanisms," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(3_4), pages 381-424, 06.
- Brandts, Jordi & Schram, Arthur, 2001. "Cooperation and noise in public goods experiments: applying the contribution function approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 399-427, February.
- Plott, Charles R, 1982. "Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1485-1527, December.
- Potters, Jan & van Winden, Frans, 2000.
"Professionals and students in a lobbying experiment: Professional rules of conduct and subject surrogacy,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 499-522, December.
- Potters, J.J.M. & Winden, F.A.A.M. van, 2000. "Professionals and students in a lobbying experiment - Professional rules of conduct and subject surrogacy," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-84634, Tilburg University.
- Stuart Mestelman & David Feeny, 1988. "Does ideology matter?: Anecdotal experimental evidence on the voluntary provision of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 281-286, June.
- Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Teresa Rodríguez).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.